Masopher's Mind

Reports have surfaced that the US is upset with the UK for revealing the details of extradition victim Binyam Mohamed. It is no secret that the UK has been at very least complicit with the US with the extraordinary rendition flights of suspected terrorists and plotters. When a disturbed Muslim from North Africa who lives in London goes to hang out in Afghan-Pak-istan this sets off certain red flags and understandably the US want to ask the gentleman in question some questions.

Maybe Mr Mohamed had legitimate reasons for it. Maybe Binyam is a nice guy who just had some friends or a potential bride in Pakistan. Maybe he listens to the hateful rhetoric that is known to be spouted in some London mosques and laughs it off as rubbish. Maybe as a foreigner he is being treated well by his host country and feels no resentment for the lifestyles he no doubt witnessed. Maybe Binyam was so full of his own drug problems that he didn’t care about the religio-politics of the world. But it is a crime to plot against and train for the destruction of a state and the agents of state need to ensure a crime isn’t being committed. There a lot of maybes and the job of intelligence is to turn maybes into certainties.

Withholding intelligence to an ally is tantamount to an intelligence community act of war. Information which may save lives won’t be available and co-operation will cease. States will be attacked because the intelligence arms have purposefully amputated themselves in order to spare judges and politicians from having to address very hard philosophical issues.

No Joke

David “banana man” Milliband cannot be sincere when he presents the UK with the scenario of the CIA refusing to co-operate with the MI-5, MI-6. I am going to call shenanigans on this report. The Atlantic alliance is so intertwined that this threat is impossible to carry out . Too much has been sacrificed over the past 100 years for pusillanimous and short sighted crowd-pleasing gestures. David Davis plays this card hopefully understanding that he will never again be allowed within 40 feet of the intelligence community. It is a nasty move which forces Miliband to make a bigger clown out of himself for the sake of protecting the country and the hard working individuals risking their life and making difficult decisions.  Less overt was the fact that “other agencies” will stop co-operating if the British intel community was seen to be “a squealer”.

The CIA is probably by far the most noble of the intelligence agencies that the Brits have to deal with. Saudi intelligence, Mossaud, Shin bet, ISI, RAW, BND, former KGB, private companies, all of these guys have dirty hands and after all that MI6 has done over the years, catching a bout of self righteous conscience is the sure way to find themselves kicked out of the club they helped start.

As with everything old and vital, the intelligence community must accept the past which it cannot change and change the present behaviour which it cannot accept. 

This article is in response to a BPS post critisizing former APA president Ronald Levarant on visiting Guantanamo Bay and promoting the involvment of Psychologists in everyday life.

Perhaps I misunderstand. Is the original poster suggesting that Gitmo and torture will cease to exist if psychologists were to not be involved?

Is Ronald Levarant such a bad person for wanting psychologists to be involved in all human activities including the less savory ones such as torture or judging without 100% accuracy that a convicted criminal will recidivate therefore denying a human the chance of freedom? Does the OP think that lambasting him is enough? Perhaps subjecting Levarant to the torture he apparently promotes might teach him a lesson? Making an enemy of this man because of the beliefs he has treads the very same ground now being walked by the American administration. Everything is a matter of perspective and I strongly believe in seeking to understand before condemning.

It is fashionable to criticize the United States for ‘Gitmo’ or an American psychologist for appreciating the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo Bay but has anybody ever considered that it this just a matter of popular opinion and not absolute. For instance: Why is the Nazi genocide such a gruesome specter to haunt Mr. Levarant’s words but the Armenia genocide and the African Chattel slavery and Native American genocide events that are shrugged at, forgotten or passed off as things done long ago? If one takes the position that all these are ‘bad things’ that are un-natural and should not happen then perhaps first hand observation by a trained psychologist may go some way in appreciating and rectifying a ‘problem’ that seems to happen all too often through-out history.

In Nazi German, Ottoman Turkey and 18th Century England just as it is now, there were a string of scientists who were very legitimate and who tried to legitimize very objectionable (in the modern sense) things. However if one were to employ empathy and some attempt at objectivism and retrospect one can also see how beneficial these very bad events were to the people at the time as well as the successive generations. Nazi Germany produced scientific advances in nuclear and rocket technology quickly adopted by English and American administrations but also advances in medicine, biology and psychology used today. I agree whole heartedly with any detractors that these advances by no means vindicates the incredible human costs but my perspective in psychology is emphasizing the positive and trying to make “bad practices” better not be condemning or ostracizing but through participation understanding and offering positive alternative behavior.

As an observer of human behavior I find it unacceptable that psychologists are being encouraged to deny, defy or hide from the existence of human evil. Will the BPS and APA screen out people based on their penchance for participating in or attempting to rationalize socially reprehensible acts? Will the BPS and APA start officially condemning Guantanamo, or lesser ‘evils’ like teenage pregnancy, prostitution, or drug abuse? Will the BPS begin writing a list of ‘thou shalt nots’ for the general public as well as for members? It is high time that we get more involved with our fellow human beings and accept them for who they are. I take the view that we are scientists, not authorities on right and wrong.

References:
A good history book, introspection, personal experience, a bit of Jung and Nietzsche